Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 22

Thread: My View on Meyer's WFC, the VIC, Resonance, and the Reaction Water has.

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    51

    My View on Meyer's WFC, the VIC, Resonance, and the Reaction Water has.

    The next diagram (Below) is a copy of my original diagram of Meyer’s VIC (Modified Sunday, April 15, 2007, 9:09:31 AM ) with TX4 & TX5 modified to clarify that they are bifilar wound, and all coils have been given polarity marks. I further modified this diagram to point out the two parts which make up the capacitor which is active in forming the resonant L/C circuit. The labeling of TX2 has also been changed from “Secondary Coil” to “Electrode Biasing Coil” (Which I find more descriptive).

    Attachment 2351

    It may sound odd, but I’m of the opinion that voltage, when applied to a wire 50 miles long, may immediately appear at the other end. Let me explain. We currently have no means of measuring voltage without electron flow, and that electron flow is appropriately called current. We have instruments known as volt meters, which measure current, that current representing the voltage required to create said current. We have resistors which limit current flow based on the voltage pushing the current, but no real way of verifying actual voltage drop, just current drop. I say all this after seeing the circuitry involved in an experiment where +15,000 volts was momentarily (fraction of a second) applied to an electrode in a container of water via a large choke, and the water immediately broke down into hydrogen & oxygen, then ignited, reforming water, and very little power was expended during the entire process. My conclusion is that electrons were not the operative force in this experiment, leaving voltage as having caused the reaction, and that reaction took place before electron flow could accelerate and have any significant impact. It does make sense that electrons were yanked off the water molecules, allowing the hydrogen & oxygen to break free and form a gas pocket in the water, but massive electron flow didn’t take place, partly because of the brevity of the application of power, but also because of the choke. Electron flow appears to have some form of inertia, and that inertia seems to have some connection with the creation of a magnetic field. To me, it appears voltage affects all electrons in a conductor immediately upon application, but the electrons have to follow some sequential set of rules in order to move or flow.


    Also, it appears an inductor or electromagnet can create a much greater magnetic field than it can sustain without damage. For instance, an electromagnet rated for continuous use at 10 volts might be driven for a fraction of a second at 1000 volts without even getting warm, but produce a massive magnetic field while powered, and use only a fraction of a watt in the duration of the process. Case in point, Edwin Gray’s motor.


    It may appear I’ve been chasing rabbits, so let me get back to the point, that IF voltage, when applied to a length of wire, immediately appears at the other end, the Meyer’s bifilar winding has 4 purposes.
    1) An efficient method of ionizing water molecules based on a resonant L/C circuit.
    2) A method of applying a bias voltage to the electrodes of the watercell.
    3) A method of delaying electron flow to the electrodes of the watercell.
    4) A method of entraining water molecules so the electrodes become insulated from each other.

    (Continued)

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    51

    My View on Meyer's WFC, the VIC, Resonance, and the Reaction Water has.

    A similar technology developed by Bob Boyce appears to me to use 3 of the afore mentioned methods. (1, 2, and 4)


    The story of how Bob discovered his technology, (as I remember) had to do with Bob’s racing boats, and finding a performance boost by using HHO from an on-board electrolyzer. As the story goes, his alternator suffered a malfunction where a rectifier shorted, and when he hit a certain RPM, his electrolyzer would produce HHO well beyond expectation or design. I don’t recall that Bob ever revealed which rectifier shorted, be it on the positive or negative rail, so one is left to wonder. Bob also never revealed the actual waveform this malfunctioning alternator applied to his electrolyzer. Apparently, Bob put a lot of effort into reproducing the effect, and while he claims to have succeeded in discovering the correct waveform to reproduce the effect, he may have complicated the issue.


    One can figure out the basic waveform Bob’s alternator should have produced having one rectifier shorted, supposing all other rectifiers remained operational. What would be lacking would be any harmonics which might have been generated. But, what if the electrical effects applied to Bob’s electrolyzer were similar enough to Stan Meyer’s methods to produce the same results? What if one were to attempt to apply Stan Meyer’s methods to an alternator, and run the alternator at a speed that approached the output frequency needed to stress the water the same way Meyer’s methods accomplished?


    Meyer did have one application which used an alternator, and that application used the same method illustrated in some of Meyer’s earlier documentation were he used 3 electrodes, two electrodes closely spaced, and one electrode placed some distance away from the closely spaced pair. The far electrode allowed efficient breakdown of the water (at non-resonant frequencies) by entraining water molecules in conduction paths from the closely spaced electrode pair to the far electrode, then applying a bias voltage to the closely spaced electrode pair when they were insulated from each other, and removing that bias after fractured molecules broke established conduction paths, which released entrained water molecules to form new conduction paths between the closely spaced electrodes. After having removed the bias voltage from the closely spaced electrode pair, the freed water molecules would reform conduction paths to the far electrode, thus regaging the process. So, Meyer’s alternator method worked outside any L/C circuit resonance due to the use of a 3rd electrode, but did require regaging, and any chokes/inductors used in Mayer’s alternator application were not there particularly for resonance, but to mitigate momentary/periodic electron flow that might occur between biased electrodes before regaging events. Meyer was after reducing as much current flow as he could, using any means necessary.


    Bob’s focus has always been production, and while the basic effect does increase overall efficiency, Bob’s focus has not been efficiency. I’m not attempting to discount Bob’s achievements, but rather, I am attempting to point out my belief that both Bob and Stan were creating the same sequence of events in water which ultimately results in the breakdown of the water molecule.


    It appears to me that if one does not use a 3rd electrode, the only way to entrain enough water molecules to insulate the biased electrode pair is to run at circuit resonance or better, and running a circuit above it’s resonant frequency requires the application of more power, thus the reason Meyer used pancake windings in an effort to reduce stray capacitance in his transformer windings, thus increasing the frequency of his L/C resonant circuit. Also, if it did not occur to the reader, using a 3rd electrode reduces the efficiency of the process due to the fact that current from an external source has to be applied to that 3rd electrode to entrain the water molecules into conduction paths, and this amounts to more power than is required to keep a resonant circuit bouncing along.

    (Continued)

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    51

    My View on Meyer's WFC, the VIC, Resonance, and the Reaction Water has.

    Back to Bob’s technology. Below is a diagram that is somewhat along the lines of what Bob described in the malfunction of his alternator. I have assumed the rectifier which shorted was on the ground side, and have also removed the rectifier for that winding from the positive rail as well. The included waveform is what I believe would be applied to the electrodes by this circuit. The waveform in this diagram looks similar to Meyer’s technology in function, and will require the alternator to be run above a certain RPM to achieve the desired effect.

    Attachment 2352


    If one removed the full wave bridge rectifier, one would likely see the waveforms shown in the following diagram applied to the electrodes. Just looking at the waveforms in the diagram below, it doesn’t appear to me that this would work well, if at all. I say this because a bias is established across the electrodes before conduction paths can be formed into the rest of the water as needed to insulate the electrodes from each other.

    Attachment 2353

    Any method which breaks water down more efficiently is progress. And, any method that accomplishes this feat to any great degree appears to require the sequence of entraining the water molecules in active conduction paths, then applying an electric field across those active conduction paths at a 90deg angle, then regaging in order to re-entrain any water molecules freed from the previously created conduction paths.

    Well, one can only connect the dots using what knowledge one has, and I have arrived at these conclusions based on my research and experiments. I have caused two electrodes to become insulated from each other when spaced 3mm apart as part of a resonant L/C circuit. I have also broken down water using one wire in a cup of water insulated from everything else which might conduct any current, only using 60 cycles.(So much for molecular frequency theory)

    I’ve been watching and waiting for someone to explain how Meyer’s technology works since 1996. I’ve seen faulty logic used to explain this technology, and most of it was apparent at the time. Pieces were left out. Wishful thinking was plugged in. It looks as if my logic is correct on this, at least to me. Time and results will prove me right or wrong. I’m not looking for recognition, just results.

    I didn’t set this documentation up in the fashion of a wiki or mind-map, and so, the ideas presented may not have been as cohesive as they might have been, but I hope you didn’t find reading the info presented here to be too laborous and that you may have come up with some ideas of your own.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    51
    Here are two links to the same Meyer patent where the VIC and resonance are described. The control circuitry given in block diagram are more complicated than needed, and IMO, are done this way to confuse those who might try to replicate the technology rather than get the basics of operation understood.

    http://www.waterpoweredcar.com/pdf.f...entcircuit.pdf

    http://stanleymeyermedia.com/new/doc...O9207861A1.pdf

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    11

    Voltage propgation speed and CUrrent Inertia.

    It may sound odd, but I’m of the opinion that voltage, when applied to a wire 50 miles long, may immediately appear at the other end. Let me explain. We currently have no means of measuring voltage without electron flow, and that electron flow is appropriately called current.
    A very old fashioned foil leaf electroscope detects DC voltage with no current flow. A more sensitive detector is this modern one The Foil Leaf style can be observed much faster than visually with the addition of a Laser diode and a photo cell to detect the slightest movement of the leaves.

    The most used description of current flow is; Electrons jump from one atom's valence shell to the next at the speed of light in the conductor. Generally that speed is considered to be C x .95 in copper.

    Voltage potential is basically the difference in the density of free electrons between two points in a circuit or between two unconnected Circuits. Since it takes some time for any free electrons to move to the end of a conductor, it also takes some time for the density at the end to increase.

    To travel 300,000M takes an electron 1.0526 milliseconds in copper. It will also take that long for the voltage to be detected by the fastest, most sensitive method. Since the wire and earth form a reactive circuit, it will take longer for the full voltage to be detected.

    Something to be aware of is that at higher frequencies, ( IDR how high,) the apparent resistance increases due to Skin Effect. At 1 MHz use solid, not stranded wire. At higher than 3 MHz, I would research Skin Effect.

    You may also be interested in Normal vibrational frequencies of water molecule

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    51
    Thanks for your comment, research, and the links you provided ZavraD!
    Good stuff!

    I can't agree that the foil leaf electroscope detects DC voltage with no current flow. I can agree that the current flow is minimal, short in duration, and likely the lesser of many voltage detectors, but there is still current flow. Any conductor has a capacitance, so while the foil leaf electroscope does not have a sustained current flow, there is a flow of current or there would be no effect.

    Does the influence of an electron's charge extend beyond the general proximity of the electron? And can that influence be detected and/or measured with absolutely no electron movement?

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    11
    Quote Originally Posted by Retro View Post
    Thanks for your comment, research, and the links you provided ZavraD!
    Good stuff!

    I can't agree that the foil leaf electroscope detects DC voltage with no current flow. I can agree that the current flow is minimal, short in duration, and likely the lesser of many voltage detectors, but there is still current flow. Any conductor has a capacitance, so while the foil leaf electroscope does not have a sustained current flow, there is a flow of current or there would be no effect.
    Does the influence of an electron's charge extend beyond the general proximity of the electron?
    Yes. De jure, to the ends of the Universe; De facto, until it is lost in noise.

    And can that influence be detected and/or measured with absolutely no electron movement?
    Absolutely speaking, No. Practically yes. In the case of the Leaf Electroscope the electrons must move into the leaves before the leaves move apart (- voltage, for + E the electrons move out of)

    A crude ASCII schematic of a leaf electroscope

    E Source -----------------<

    Where ----- is a wire connected to the E Source and < is the two leaves (connected to the wire.)

    The Leaf Electroscope uses the fact that two objects with the same charge repel each other.

    I believe that using the term Absolute delays understanding because "absolute" involves any distances and times equal to or larger than one Plank, (there are none smaller)

    I can't agree that the foil leaf electroscope detects DC voltage with [absolutely] no current flow.
    I absolutely agree with you and if you had said
    I can't agree that the foil leaf electroscope detects DC voltage with effectively no current flow.
    I would have to effectively disagree with you.

    If we were discussing equipment that operated in the X-Band, (Satellite communications et al,) the "Effective" statements would be wrong due to the incredibly short wavelengths involved. Down around the Microwave band, the Effective" statements are starting to becoming more pertinent.

    The visuals I have seen of the equipment involved indicate me that the highest frequencies that we amateurs will probably be working with is Microwave. When the HHO Industry matures we may see Cells operating in the nanometer and smaller range. At that time "Absolute" will be a prerequisite for understanding.

    I do hope this helps. I greatly appreciate this thread.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    11
    In reply to post #3

    Quote Originally Posted by Retro View Post
    Now a word about the pulse trains used to drive the VIC and the resulting waveforms in reference to Meyers original diagram. Many may be of the opinion that the rising pulse train represents the resonant frequency. But I have a different opinion. In the illustrations (below), notice the three wave forms. I believe the waveform labeled “Cathode” represents the waveform that exists between ground and the connection of the diode’s cathode to TX4. Connecting an oscilloscope directly to B+ and B- at the very least would change the resonance of the whole circuit.



    I also believe the waveform labeled “B+ and B-“ is the correct representation of the differential that exists on the electrodes (B+ and B-) at any point in time during the pulse train. The waveform in black being the differential that exists on the electrodes, the red being the differential that exists between ground and the junction of the diode to TX4.

    (Continued)
    I am glad I am rereading your thread, because this time I can view the attachments. It makes a lot more sense this way.

    It is my belief (mostly due to the pulsed square wave input, that the VIC = the Resonant Cavity is a ringing transformer. The Pulse Input wave form should have a reference voltage of 0vdc across the middle of the waveform. The Cathode Waveform should (IMO) be flipped left to right, should have its 0vdc reference line at the bottom. and the Anode's waveform would be Identical to the Cathode's except inverted. Note that for all three, the top of the image is the Negative voltage referenced to ground or neutral.

    Note also, that the input shows 6 pulses, but the cathode's image only shows 2 of those input pulses. T

    TX1, 2, and 3 are primarily tuned to the frequency of the input pulses.

    TX 4 and 5 and the "Resonant Cavity" are tuned to the resonant frequency of the Ringing oscillator they form. IMO, the oscillator is triggered by the leading edge of the input pulse. Power is supplied to the oscillator by the Pulsing Core during oscillation, (ringing). Only current required to split H2O molecules actually flows thru the oscillator circuit.

    I am sorry, I can see why it works, but I can't articulate how it works just yet. In the US Navy, in the early 70's, this type of circuit was a week long course all by itself. It is a really fascinating piece of work.

    IT might help to think of it as several "Black Boxes." I am ignoring TX3 for now.

    TX1 and TX 2 and the Diode are one black box (Input Box or IB). In the IB, the diode effectively stops most current flow in one direction. That is because solid state diodes do not absolutely block reverse current. Another BB, the Control Box, (or CB,) consists of TX4 ad 5. The Resonant Cavity (RC) is another BB and last is the Oscillator Box, (OB), which is made up of the CB and the RC.

    The totality of the IB consists of TX1 and 2, the diode and the CB. The CB effectively blocks most current flow during the half cycle that the Diode doesn't. Note that neither one absolutely blocks current flow. In fact, within the OB, effectively, current flows just fine.

    The IB operates at highest efficiency at the Input Pulse frequency, while the CB does so at a much higher frequency.

    IMO, it is a requirement that inside the OC, the CB either stops current flow during half of each cycle or keeps the cathode negative with respect to the anode. Otherwise the 2H and O Ions would be trying to convert to H2.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    51
    ZavraD,

    I hit "Reply with quote" and I see more in your reply than is displayed while browsing the thread. Interesting...

    Thanks for breaking out the possible implications in my statements.
    I was implying [Absolute].

    I was just thinking, this same issue exists in hydraulics.
    A pressure gauge works in a similar fashion to the leaf electroscope.
    The pressure of a fluid cannot be measured without at least a small movement of fluid into the gauge.

    With pressure we can end up with an elemental phase change. (Gas > Liquid > Solid)
    With voltage, we can end up with leakage.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    51
    Ahhh...Okay....
    One must be logged in to see imbedded images when browsing the thread.

    You make some good points concerning the pulse trains.

    I'm inclined to believe the pulse input is just a logic level representation.

    I should probably go back and re-think the cathode waveform.

    Concerning the transformer and resonance, I think Meyer made things more complicated than they needed to be. I think with feedback to an amplifier, and this amplifier driving the transformer and associated circuitry, this could all operate as a free-running oscillator which would automatically run at the resonant frequency. No tuning needed.

    I believe the following image is the basis of the resonant circuit.


    I've been contemplating all this for around 18 years, running tests now and again to validate theories. I tend to think in pictures, pictures being worth a thousand words, something usually ends up being lost in translation.

    The operation of this device is a vortex of sequences, so black boxing it is a good choice.

    I think I'd black-box TX1 & TX3 as a free-running oscillator.(includes amplifier)
    TX2 & diode as the electrode bias generator.
    TX4 & TX5 could possibly fit into two black-boxes 1) water formatter 2) electrode bias conduit.

    TX4 & TX5 are the main influence for the resonant frequency, being the largest inductors and being connected to the two individual masses which in effect make the capacitor, those individual masses being ground and the container of water.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •